Epstein Secrets

plained in its Order, a defendant seeking material pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Pursuant to that standard, a Rule 17(c) subpoena "should not issue unless it meets three criteria: `(1) relevancy, (2) admiss

Brady material—or any other material—was taken from a witness in the middle of the witness's cross-examination, then returned to him for five days. The Second Circuit found that those events "created a serious risk that significant material would be destroyed or tampered with." Id. Here, in contrast, the diary co

l McElroy Deutsch Miller & James Morgan Lewis Nixon Peabody Pepper Hamilton Proskauer Rose Reed Sm

ether his motivation should have been considered. Read full article » TRANSPORTATION 2nd Circ. Revives NYC Taxi Drivers' Unfair Suspension Suits The Second Circuit ruled Friday that New York City's practice of summarily suspending licenses for taxi drivers who've been arrested but not yet convicted deprives th

plained in its Order, a defendant seeking material pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Pursuant to that standard, a Rule 17(c) subpoena "should not issue unless it meets three criteria: `(1) relevancy, (2) admiss

Brady material—or any other material—was taken from a witness in the middle of the witness's cross-examination, then returned to him for five days. The Second Circuit found that those events "created a serious risk that significant material would be destroyed or tampered with." Id. Here, in contrast, the diary co

ch as using records "to gratify spite or promote scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption." Nixon v. Warner Commcins, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (internal quotation marks an

As noted above, the Protective Order specified that confidential material would not be protected with respect to any document proffered at trial. The Second Circuit has recognized two approaches for determining whether the First Amendment right of access extends to particular judicial records. Lugosch, 435 F.3d